I thought Lake Mungo was a clever ghost story. I had a feeling on the twist early on but dropped it as there were so many changes in the story. But I did like the ending.

The pregnant lady? I didn't believe it either. The lady in Dream Home went crazy. I posted about it on the other horror forum that I didn't believe she could snap and go that far. Someone said it was a satire I think. But she basically runs though the apartment like Jason. Someone compared Natalie Portman's character in Black Swan to Jason on another forum. I still need to see that one.

I guess I'm trying to prioritize what's on my movie list. There are so many and I don't want to waste time, at least not now on junk. Movies that you guys mentioned or I think might be good are:

Martyrs
Evil Dead - I can barely remember this one. So I'm going to start again with the remake.
House of the Devil
Drag Me to Hell
The Ward
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane
Inside

I added a few from your posts.

Also, I thought about some movies that aren't horror directly but have wild horror elements that modern horror movies don't use.

Hell Ride - I think many see this as Grindhouse Part 3. It's pretty raunchy.

Swimming Pool and The Dreamers - I'm not sure if these are the over R rating. But both were pushing the nudity barrier. Maybe the rating people gave them a pass because they are foreign movies.

Doomsday - This movie has almost everything. Zombie types, Aliens references, and the one thing I thought was a joke until seeing it, cannibalism. I thought when that crazy guy says "we're going to catch them, cook them, and eat them" that he had to be joking. But nope.

Evil Dead - I can barely remember this one. So I'm going to start again with the remake.

Huh?!

Remakes are not substitutes for the original films. I say only insulting kids who have been trained to instantly hate 70's and 80's horror because they're "old" argue that they are. Well, studios might argue otherwise but name me one person who liked the remakes of The Day the Earth Stood Still or Total Recall. Just one.

I swear we live in a culture that is rejecting everything it deems too old because consumers are afraid some sort of taint dust rubs onto them and takes 20 years off their lives. That they're being trained by marketing and advertising that they must feel extremely young with everything they watch and must stay plugged into every new trend and if you're not young, you're not alive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortalSlasher

Swimming Pool and The Dreamers - I'm not sure if these are the over R rating. But both were pushing the nudity barrier. Maybe the rating people gave them a pass because they are foreign movies.

Swimming Pool is on DVD in both R and Unrated versions, so I'm assuming it was cut down for an R rating in its' theatrical run.

Remakes are not substitutes for the original films. I say only insulting kids who have been trained to instantly hate 70's and 80's horror because they're "old" argue that they are. Well, studios might argue otherwise but name me one person who liked the remakes of The Day the Earth Stood Still or Total Recall. Just one.

Remake doesnīt mean itīs gonna be bad. Look at the remakes of "The Thing" and "The Blob from the 80:s, even though I love the originals, those remakes are far superior to the originals, as they took the original idea, but did something different with it.

Sure most remakes today are pretty lackluster, but a lot of them like "Dawn of the Dead" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" have been pretty damn good.

And both the "Evil Dead" and "Maniac" remakes seems to go in the same direction with bringing something new to the table.

The ones you mentioned like "Total Recall" and "Day the earth stood still" are, together with the "Psycho" remake, some of the worst of the bunch.

An even though remakes are VERY common today, they have been around since the early days of cinema. Even Hitchcock remade some of his own movies.

I always look at a remake or a reboot with an open mind.
And even though it might sucks, the amazing original is always still there. And remakes also makes the younger audience aware of the originals, which I noticed when I worked at the videostore. Suddenly those classics began to fly of the shelfs again, and most actually enjoyed them, even the kids.

Remake doesnīt mean itīs gonna be bad. Look at the remakes of "The Thing" and "The Blob from the 80:s, even though I love the originals, those remakes are far superior to the originals, as they took the original idea, but did something different with it.

I'll give you this: I've said before, after 1986 (which is what I've been shouting for years and I think most people know about me), all remakes to good original films will be bad. And, The Crazies was not. Of course, it wasn't good either. But I'm willing to count that as an exception to the rule. That doesn't make it any measure less pointless however. And, I don't care what people think of me, you can have a new take an on old movie and... make it into a film with an original title, characters, and basic identity. You don't have to call a remake of - let's choose something random - C.H.U.D. by the same name or keep any number of original details. The couple doesn't have to live together, he doesn't have to be a photographer, she doesn't have to be pregnant, nobody has to be pregnant, there doesn't have to be a diner attack scene, etc etc etc. When you remake a well-known film, you are partly suggesting the original is significantly flawed. And that will never change. Calling it reboot isn't different either, it's the same can of shit.

Besides, if you want different from a remake, you need to have true perspective on what difference would make a remake necessary. For example: faster zombies in Dawn of the Dead is not a legitimate reason. We've already got Return of the Living Dead and 28 Days Later. Turning a quirky story about a professor's family trying to rearrange his particles and restore him back to human into a painfully heartfelt film about disease, loss, and an allegory for the darkside of promiscuous sex and the heartless artificiality of the 80's with intelligent characterization, insightful observational dialogue, and dynamic acting performances in The Fly... that's the kind of remake we get once in the existence of cinema. If you think for one second that there's another one like that- you're deluding yourself. After that, I say Cat People is the next best remake. But I say this because I personally feel the original was a social study rather than a study in terror. And failed to generate even an ounce of creepiness. The remake is a perfect example of taking an original film and turning the entire thing inside out. This doesn't happen with anything after 1986. It's impossible to compare the original and remake, they are so vastly different in terms of ideas and execution.

The only link the remake process has in those examples to films like Dawn '04 and Chainsaw '03 is that, sure, there's a world of difference between those and their originals too. As in: the remakes sucked out every last ounce of meaning, thoughtfulness, intelligence, younameit the originals had and turned them into intellectually void, cheap, unrewarding action-thrillers. They are entirely disposable and interchangeable with any number of other action-thrillers of the last 10 years with violence and gore. This... is also not a legitimate reason to remake a movie or attempt to reboot a franchise. The same goes for The Hills Have Eyes, Piranha, The Fog, Black Christmas, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th- only add sleaze, a little humor, the phoniest, z-grade, regurgitated travesty of socio-political commentary, and studio bajillionaires like Michael Bay jerking off behind the scenes, and... you've got What Remakes Are Made Of. (Remakes of a certain era.)

However... I will make one clear subgenre exception: Americanizations. Merely because I've yet to see the original Ringu, or either version of The Grudge or Let the Right One In.

As for Carpenter's The Thing... I have issues with it. Mentioned that a few times in the past (though I'm not saying you should know that, I haven't talked about it in quite a while). Not the least of which being that I find it remarkably similar to Alien.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steel76

Sure most remakes today are pretty lackluster, but a lot of them like "Dawn of the Dead" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" have been pretty damn good.

This is such an assholish thing to say, and I know/admit it, but: did you even see the originals? (I don't know what else to say and... if you say ^that^, you will get a response.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steel76

And both the "Evil Dead" and "Maniac" remakes seems to go in the same direction with bringing something new to the table.

Aah, you found my weakness. Not that I can't see into the future (I...can't, of course), but that I find 1980's Maniac to be one of the most overrated horror films in the history of the genre. Although- not overrated in the same sense as Carpenter's The Thing. Not that it's merely imperfect at all or extremely flawed. Like: it's a legitimately bad film. I'll allow people to disagree with me on this next thing I'm about to say (I know, I'm so generous- right?): there isn't a person in the world hoping harder that the Maniac remake will be good. It might be the first step on the road to selecting Bad Original Films for remaking. (Hopefully The Funhouse 2014 and Motel Hell 2015 will be shot into production right after that; I'm truly sorry about the latter dig, I still enjoy large chunks of it but...that should have been remade to spare Craven's Hills being raped as hard as it was). And, you want bringing something new to the table- I haven't seen anything like trailers but I have a strong suspicion they will have already improved upon the original in recasting. Especially if he's no longer a fat slob. (I of course know how people are going to react to hearing that but, Joe Spinell was anything but a "Fat Slob" in the Rocky films and likely was a perfectly interesting person in real life. Also, remember: I love the Sorority House Massacre sequels and Orville Ketchum / Peter Spellos is high on the list of reasons.)

However... truth: I don't have any faith in remakes. None at all. I don't even anticipate Let Me In will be any good when I finally do see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steel76

An even though remakes are VERY common today, they have been around since the early days of cinema. Even Hitchcock remade some of his own movies.

Name one that wasn't based on a literary property. Or filmed by the same director (I don't give a shit about that- directors can do whatever the fuck they want to to their own films... so long as they're not digitally erasing old details or creating new ones on movies that made them many hundreds of millions of dollars- that's seriously biting the hand that feeds).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steel76

I always look at a remake or a reboot with an open mind.

No offense but I think that's very naïve and not taking into consideration how the film business works. (Not that you're doing it bothers me but you also don't need to tell me about it.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steel76

And even though it might sucks, the amazing original is always still there.

You may very well be wrong about that too. For us, yes. Many of the originals do exist. For now, that is... But the industry is planning to move away from selling films and television on physical media. Entirely. They're planning on one day not offering consumers the option to own films at all. This may result in a Netflix type situation where the Netflix of the future lets you watch instantly but even then, you'll be borrowing. But you'll need to be constantly upgrading your computer for their upgrades in programs. That sounds about right, considering the situation with Blu-Ray forcing people to upgrade to exceedingly costly equipment just to be able to even watch the discs and DVD option already being erased with new releases: you can't get Video Dead without buying the fucking Blu-Ray. By that time, all separate properties owned by smaller companies will - mark my words - be swallowed up by a corporate giant because they'll be able to make money off of it when suing people who try to share or download it for free. Sorta like what Disney likes to do when they vault one of their animated films.

Which of course has little to do with how original films are regarded by us, the fans, but...in the meantime, I see a different reality. Kids are far more likely to have the "it's old- it's boring" reaction to creative horror films than cheap "extreme" torture survival shit. At least, so long as we keep telling them these films are so great and dishing out so much money to see and buy them.

I very much agree. But my problem with remakes is connected directly to my problem with what the genre's been turning out as product since Wrong Turn, Haute Tension, and TCM'03. What it's become. You can interpret my complaints any number of ways. I don't like films posing as extreme, brutal, intense - etc - when you have to engage the mind to do this and I don't believe for a second the likes of Saw do. Filmmakers put more emphasis on how to draw in their audiences - as a form of almost P.C. faux-artistic excuses for just shoving violent scenes in your face with about zero genuine ambition to back it up (because, don't be fooled, they love that people who want to see violent movies praise them for being "brave" enough to just show violence- they really play both sides to get to the middle) - than they do with story, character, etc. Which are essential to really feel the horror of the ideas. Horror isn't horror with pesky considerations for atmosphere or creativity anymore, it's all horror of ideas; come up with any lousy idea, spatter it through with violence, and that's horror. That's the same as suggesting horror never was an artform.

And, I don't buy that the new action-drama-thriller aesthetic with exploitation themes accurately sums up the real world problems of the last decade either. Almost all of it is about human evils committed through politics, war, and cruel ruling of nations... and they think this is accurately portrayed through tying people up, dragging them into underground bunkers, putting them in traps, raping them, having them run down the street barefoot or through the forest with the shaky camera strapped to their face so it catches cold breath exhaust and snot and tears dripping... Etc. No. What this is is recycling the themes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left, Maniac, Cannibal Holocaust, etc. Whether they're good (former two) or bad (latter two). The difference being something Mark Kermode mentioned when the remake of Friday the 13th came out: that the new breed of violent horror are polished and released into reputable cinemas instead of grindhouses. So, they don't even get the point of the original films they're aping so desperately (because they want to be superstars like Romero, Craven, Carpenter, Cronenberg, Argento, Stuart Gordon, Raimi, Bava, Peter Jackson, Hooper, Fulci, etc). If anything, as I've also said, they're following instead in a pattern set in the 90's by films such as Se7en, Kiss the Girls, Kalifornia, Fight Club, The Bone Collector - okay, Brad Pitt and Ashley Judd really had this market cornered, didn't they? - as well as the post-Scream teen slasher films. As well as forensic detection crime TV shows, especially C.S.I.

Everything horror could have offered us post-28 Days Later (with the exceptions of maybe Hostel, Mulberry Street, Seed of Chucky, and Insidious - that I've seen thus far) was just already done before. And, I mean...a few years before. Se7en is as infinitely insightful about how every horrible thing in the world affects us as a host of Martyrs could ever be. If the only frontier left to keep pushing was violence, I'm sorry but I saw that too. It was called Ichi the Killer. Which is just about the final word ON film violence. During those 2 hours, I had every reaction to watching a violent act I've ever had before with other films (well...all but one). That wasn't enough for other people? Whatever. For me, along with a select few other films (including Suicide Circle), it was. Because I don't turn to movies to wake me up, remind me I'm alive, or teach me things I don't know about real life. I know torture is bad. I know rape is bad. I understand the value of human life in so far as any film can make me and I don't need some little trendy hot-shot film school graduate with a budget to tell me differently. But, apart from that, I don't like being manipulated. And if I did, it'd take a smarter person than Alexandre Aja, Rob Zombie, Marcus Nispel, Xavier Gens, Gaspar Noe, Zack Snyder, Tom Six, Srdjan Spasojevic, Ho-Cheung Pang, Michael Dougherty, Bryan Bertino, Neil Marshall, or David DeFalco (Chaos) to do it.